On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:12:22AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > But automation takes time to build up and learn, and in the meantime doing > it by hand and learning early is definitely the right thing to do. Maybe > you doing it by hand just makes it clear that I was wrong about the need > for some strict rules that are automatically enforced in the first place.
Heh, it will have to be done by hand for a while, as I don't think any of us want to write a kernel-patch-managemement-system in our spare time. Although, I do know that osdl's PLM at one time was planned to be such a tool, I'll go kick the developers over there to see what they say... > > And if you disagree, what _should_ we call it? "-sucker" isn't good, as > > it only describes the people creating the tree, not any of the users :) > > Let's try with the 2.6.x.y numbering scheme, it's simple, and maybe it > ends up being sufficient. I just wanted to bring up the point that I don't > think the sucker tree _has_ to be seen as a 2.6.x.y tree at all. Fair enough, I'll stick with 2.6.x.y, as I think it's a good representation of what people expect. If people start objecting, I'm always open for change. thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
